Dataset Information

Simultaneous synthesis of treatment effects and mapping to a common scale: an alternative to standardisation.

ABSTRACT: Trials often may report several similar outcomes measured on different test instruments. We explored a method for synthesising treatment effect information both within and between trials and for reporting treatment effects on a common scale as an alternative to standardisationWe applied a procedure that simultaneously estimates a pooled treatment effect and the "mapping" ratios between the treatment effects on test instruments in a connected network. Standardised and non-standardised treatment effects were compared. The methods were illustrated in a dataset of 22 trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors against placebo for social anxiety disorder, each reporting treatment effects on between one and six of a total nine test instruments.Ratios of treatment effects on different test instruments varied from trial to trial, with a coefficient of variation of 18% (95% credible interval 11-29%). Standardised effect models fitted the data less well, and standardised treatment effects were estimated with less relative precision than non-standardised effects and with greater relative heterogeneity.Simultaneous synthesis of treatment effects and mapping to a common scale make fewer assumptions than standardising by dividing effects by the sample standard deviation, allow results to be reported on a common scale, and deliver estimates with superior relative precision.

SUBMITTER: Ades AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4433769 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Simultaneous synthesis of treatment effects and mapping to a common scale: an alternative to standardisation.

Ades A E AE Lu Guobing G Dias Sofia S Mayo-Wilson Evan E Kounali Daphne D

Research synthesis methods 20150123 1

<h4>Objective</h4>Trials often may report several similar outcomes measured on different test instruments. We explored a method for synthesising treatment effect information both within and between trials and for reporting treatment effects on a common scale as an alternative to standardisation<h4>Study design</h4>We applied a procedure that simultaneously estimates a pooled treatment effect and the "mapping" ratios between the treatment effects on test instruments in a connected network. Standa ...[more]

PMID: 26035473

Similar Datasets

Project description:Ecosystems provide life-sustaining services upon which human civilization depends, but their degradation largely continues unabated. Spatially explicit information on ecosystem services (ES) provision is required to better guide decision making, particularly for mountain systems, which are characterized by vertical gradients and isolation with high topographic complexity, making them particularly sensitive to global change. But while spatially explicit ES quantification and valuation allows the identification of areas of abundant or limited supply of and demand for ES, the accuracy and usefulness of the information varies considerably depending on the scale and methods used. Using four case studies from mountainous regions in Europe and the U.S., we quantify information gains and losses when mapping five ES - carbon sequestration, flood regulation, agricultural production, timber harvest, and scenic beauty - at coarse and fine resolution (250 m vs. 25 m in Europe and 300 m vs. 30 m in the U.S.). We analyze the effects of scale on ES estimates and their spatial pattern and show how these effects are related to different ES, terrain structure and model properties. ES estimates differ substantially between the fine and coarse resolution analyses in all case studies and across all services. This scale effect is not equally strong for all ES. We show that spatially explicit information about non-clustered, isolated ES tends to be lost at coarse resolution and against expectation, mainly in less rugged terrain, which calls for finer resolution assessments in such contexts. The effect of terrain ruggedness is also related to model properties such as dependency on land use-land cover data. We close with recommendations for mapping ES to make the resulting maps more comparable, and suggest a four-step approach to address the issue of scale when mapping ES that can deliver information to support ES-based decision making with greater accuracy and reliability.

Project description:BackgroundThe growing tendency among opioid addicts to misuse multiple other drugs should lead clinicians and researchers to search for new pharmacological strategies in order to prevent life-threatening complications and minimize withdrawal symptoms during polydrug detoxification.MethodsA non-randomised, open-label in-patient detoxification study was used to compare the short-time efficacy of a standardised regimen comprising 6 days Buprenorphine and 10 days Valproate (BPN/VPA) (n = 12) to a control group (n = 50) who took a 10-day traditional Clonidine/Carbamazepine (CLN/CBZ) regimen. Sixty-two dependent subjects admitted to a detoxification unit were included, all dependent on at least opioids and benzodiazepines. Other dependencies were not excluded.ResultsIn the BPN/VPA group, 8 out of 12 patients (67%) completed treatment compared with 25 of 50 patients (50%) in the CLN/CBZ group; this difference between the groups was non-significant (p = 0.15). Withdrawal symptoms were reduced in both groups, but only the BPN/VPA group achieved a reduction in withdrawal symptoms from day one. The difference between the two groups was significantly in favour of the BPN/VPA group for days 2 (p < 0.001), 3 (p < 0.05), 4 (p < 0.001), 5 (p < 0.01), 7 (p < 0.01) and 8 (p < 0.05). The BPN/VPA combination did not affect blood pressure, pulse or liver function, and the total burden of side-effects was experienced as modest. There appeared to be no pharmacological interactions of clinical concern, based on measurement of Buprenorphine and Valproate serum levels. Both the patients and the staff were satisfied with the standardised treatment combination.ConclusionOverall, the combination of Buprenorphine and Valproate seems to be a safe and promising method for treating multiple drug withdrawal symptoms. The results of this study suggest that the BPN/VPA combination is potentially a better detoxification treatment for polydrug withdrawal than the traditional treatment with Clonidine and Carbamazepine. However, a randomised, double-blind study with a larger sample size to confirm our results is recommended.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Treatment-resistant depression (TRD) is a serious and relatively common clinical condition. Lack of consensus on defining and staging TRD remains one of the main barriers to understanding TRD and approaches to intervention. The Maudsley Staging Method (MSM) is the first multidimensional model developed to define and stage treatment-resistance in "unipolar depression". The model is being used increasingly in treatment and epidemiological studies of TRD and has the potential to support consensus. Yet, standardised methods for rating the MSM have not been described adequately. The aim of this report is to present standardised approaches for rating or completing the MSM. METHOD:Based on the initial development of the MSM and a narrative review of the literature, the developers of the MSM provide explicit guidance on how the three dimensions of the MSM--treatment failure, severity of depressive episode and duration of depressive episode-- may be rated. RESULT:The core dimension of the MSM, treatment failure, may be assessed using the Maudsley Treatment Inventory (MTI), a new method developed for the purposes of completing the MSM. The MTI consists of a relatively comprehensive list of medications with options for rating doses and provisions treatment for multiple episodes. The second dimension, severity of symptoms, may be assessed using simple instruments such as the Clinical Global Impression, the Psychiatric Status Rating or checklist from a standard diagnostic checklist. The standardisation also provides a simple rating scale for scoring the third dimension, duration of depressive episode. CONCLUSION:The approaches provided should have clinical and research utility in staging TRD. However, in proposing this model, we are fully cognisant that until the pathophysiology of depression is better understood, staging methods can only be tentative approximations. Future developments should attempt to incorporate other biological/ pathophysiological dimensions for staging.

Dataset Information

Simultaneous synthesis of treatment effects and mapping to a common scale: an alternative to standardisation.

Publications

Simultaneous synthesis of treatment effects and mapping to a common scale: an alternative to standardisation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets